User talk:Aquatic Ambiance: Difference between revisions

June 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to American football. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

IFFHS STATS

IFFHS stats doesn't include all the career of footballers and are against FIFA principles. A few days ago, FIFA re-published the Josef Bican article (originaly dated 25 of September 2020), recognising 805 goals in official games and 1,468 including friedlies. The type of games IFFHS recognize (higher level) is UNOFFICIAL. En.wikipedia made a SENIOR MISTAKE today against football history, against the career of old footballers and against official football statistics. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Please stop changing out the word "remake" like it's a bad word or something. Remakes are reimaginings, and remake is a far for frequently used term in the industry. And while it's nice you use sources to back it up...you're just cherry-picking - for every source for "reimagining" there's plenty more for "remake".

Feel free to start up a talk page discussion at an article, or WT:VG or something, but I really feel like this is a waste of time - "remake" fits the situation just fine. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sergecross73, so please stop wasting time on this trivial thing. The word "remake" can mean different things to different people. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Euros Semi-finals

That info you removed should ideally be on another page (the main Euros page), but they didn't want it! It's very useful, so where should I put it without creating a new page?

Like I said on National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship, all the info of that table is already in other tables. So it's redundant. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Merging articles on the FIFA World Cup

After a merger of articles or sections, the resulting content is supposed to be a union of the original contents, not an intersection thereof.

You redirected the "All-time table" page to a section of the "National team appearances" page, and now, some of the information that was in the former page (which was essentially a single-section page) is either spread out across multiple sections in the latter page or is nonexistent there.

I think the original table should either be restored in its own dedicated page or inserted within "National team appearances". Then we'd be able to get rid of two or three redundant sections in "National team appearances". I, too, have expressed concerns about the duplicate information and have even suggested the same type of merger. If anything of the original table is unneeded or undesired, this can be discussed separately.

Such all-time tables aren't necessarily adequate comparisons of records because the World Cups aren't direct competitions among all teams, but various sources publish them, including FIFA itself. This might bear a mention in whichever page contains the table. --Theurgist (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Theurgist, the reason I merged them is I wanted the table to be uniform with related articles National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, National team appearances in the FIFA U-17 World Cup, Copa América records and statistics and such. The way they're now is (in my opinion) the most clinical, best presentation. The table that was used for the Fifa World cup was confusing and had too many irrelevant numbers. Using 3 points per win is the most common count and is now used everywhere so there's no need to add the 2 points per win count which was only used a brief period. Hope this clears things up. This is just my opinion anyway. Cheers Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, knowing that the all-time table deals primarily with match results and not just with team appearances, do you think it really belongs in the "National team appearances" page? It could be moved to the "Records and statistics" page, or indeed to its own dedicated page. (And also, "Records and statistics" could be cleansed of all the unremarkable trivia it has, a concern raised more than once on the relevant talk page.) --Theurgist (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not for removing info on the Record and statistics page. It's a very long article, maybe too long. But the info is relevant enough to keep. It doesn't hurt anybody to just leave it as it is now. I agree maybe it's better to merge the National team appearances page with the Records and statistics page, but there's one obvious problem; the article would become even longer. National team appearances in the Africa Cup of Nations and Africa Cup of Nations records and statistics has the same issue. And many more including National team appearances in the UEFA European Championship and List of UEFA European Championship records and statistics. I think it's also important to make those articles uniform and not all different with each their own tables but yeah. It's a lot of work now. There's way too many pages at this point. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Vegetarianism by country

Hello there. I've noticed you've reverted my edits (with no reason given) twice on the Vegetarianism by country article. Let's try and avoid an edit war! I made an edit to the UK figures in good faith based on finding a better source than the one that was already there. I explained that in my edit summary. It's good practice in Wikipedia to give a reason for a revert - see Help:Reverting. As I'm sure we want the best quality article, please visit the talk page on the Vegetarianism article. You'll see we're not the only editors having concerns about the article's references. Seaweed (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The problem is that Statista does has reliable sources concerning other subjects and I've given them the benefit of the doubt, as mentioned on the Talk page. Where on the source you provided can I actually see the percentage? You have to add the page number with the source. And "Not verifiable source found" or "Unknown" aren't needed because if there's no data you can just leave it blank as is the case with plenty other boxes. But as long as there are no better sources we just stick with Statista. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You make some important points. However let's take this conversation over to the talk page on the article, so everyone else can follow this issue.Seaweed (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPMD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mang0, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Red Bull. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Largoplazo (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to OnlyFans. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please undo your edits for the "December 2021 Malaysian floods"

Please undo your edits related to the December 2021 Malaysian floods because you are deleting information that made the existing words misleading. Listing the amount of victims is not an overkill. Refer Hurricane Katrina and Typhoon Rai.

Thank you.

Removed some portions of the article as you did. No need for further actions, thank you.

(PenangLion (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC))

ITN recognition for December 2021 Malaysian floods

On 23 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article December 2021 Malaysian floods, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"OnlySimps" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect OnlySimps and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 23#OnlySimps until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vegetarianism by country. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. पदाति (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page 1994 FIFA World Cup Final, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Koopinator (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your topic ban again. I am unsure which part of "You are topic banned from the subject of all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed." is unclear, but your edits on MGTOW and Feminism clearly fall into it. I suspect any further block will probably be indefinite.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give HumancentiPad a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into HUMANCENTiPAD. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I tried moving HumancentiPad to HUMANCENTiPAD first but then I got an error saying "The page could not be moved, for the following reason:The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

And yet you went ahead and made the move anyways. Did it not occur to you that the warning displayed for a purpose? older ≠ wiser 16:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that's why I moved the content manually. But it's been put back now anyway. I don't understand how to do it with the Move tab. Maybe just leave it like this, even though the name is incorrect. I don't know, I was just trying to correct the page. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That's even worse. Copy-paste moves are only rarely appropriate in pretty limited circumstances. The warning mention to use Requested moves. There are instructions about how to request to move a page when you are not able to. 16:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

CSD A7 scope

Hi, I reverted your A7 tagging on 2022 Sherani bus crash because unorganized events and news stories do not fall within the scope of the criterion. {{db-event}} is reserved for organized events such as tours, meetings, parties, etc. In this case, the article can be nominated for deletion in a different venue (PROD/AfD) if notability (e.g., through lasting coverage) cannot be ascertained. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of natural disasters by death toll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2022 European heat wave.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "total" from storm death tolls as "obvious"

Hi, I noticed that for the infoboxes of some tropical cyclones, as in this edit you removed "total" stating that it was obvious. The "total" is there because we try to distinguish between direct and indirect deaths where possible, but that information is not always available, only a total death toll. I thought I'd mention it here since I don't want to revert good faith edits unless they're problematic. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Hm, ok. I didn't know that. Thanks for clearing it up! Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at COVID-19, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. For the encyclopedia on matters concerning human health or disease, we use reviews according to WP:MEDRS. Your edit is an early-stage study, unconfirmed by a review. Don't edit war, WP:WAR. Zefr (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Since when aren't scientific journals reliable sources anymore? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding about sourcing for an encyclopedia. We do not use unconfirmed primary research because those results - even though published in a peer-reviewed journal - are not final, so are not factual (not "encyclopedic") until agreed by significant scientific consensus. Best to read all of WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The pyramid at WP:MEDASSESS is very useful. Your articles fall under case-control studies, they are not particularly useful to the encyclopedia as a whole. If you want a reason as to why they're not particularly useful, the often contain bias, such as recall bias, second of all, they can establish correlation, but not causation, which is a very important thing in statistics. This means people with pescetarian diets may have reduced COVID-19 fatality rates, but the cause of the reduced fatality may not be the diet, it might be due to other factors such as the people who typically are pescetarian are more health-conscious, or some other external variable. It could be the diet. The case-control study more often than not does not discuss this though. I hope this explains it for you, if you have any further questions feel free to reply & ping me, if you don't know how to do that you can simply just leave a message at my talk page if that suits you. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 23:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Standard alert for covid

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with adding info from scientific journals? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s irrelevant to the alert, but I see someone has explained this above.Doug Weller talk 18:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"link leads nowhere" at prison riot

Your undo was overly hasty, as a redirect in place of potential article was in the works. Furthermore, there is no problem with adding WP:REDLINKS for notable subjects that warrant their own article. --2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Uniform with other Wikipedia pages"

Which Wikipedia pages do you mean in this revert? "More than" clearly links to the ">" symbol and doesn't mention the postfix "+". The article on "+" also says nothing that it can be used as it was in the article you have reverted. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

List of battles by casualties, List of epidemics, List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, List of natural disasters by death toll, List of serial killers by number of victims etc. It's because + looks more professional. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Then these articles need to be corrected as well. The claim about "looks more professional" is extremely strange. Could you please provide at least one reliable style guide that prescribes writing "⟨number⟩+" instead of ">⟨number⟩"? All the scientific literature I saw uses the consistent notation like "≪⟨number⟩", "<⟨number⟩", "≤⟨number⟩", "≲⟨number⟩", "~⟨number⟩", "≳⟨number⟩", "≥⟨number⟩", ">⟨number⟩", "≫⟨number⟩" for various estimations. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So, @Aquatic Ambiance: have you found any style guide saying that postfix plus is "professional"? From my side, I can only refer you to the Chicago Manual of Style, which describes the use of ">" and "≥" in section "3.83: Number ranges" and doesn't even mention anywhere that "+" can be used for such purposes. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Serial Killers

Do not make a revert of Top publishing house content especially when the section is titled Disputed. The notes state what he confessed to police and what the final proven count of his victims was Foorgood (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Copying/moving text within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup into FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup records and statistics. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Text wasn't copied, but moved. Thank you. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Attribution is required for both copying and for moving. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Merging

Hi, I think you tried to do a merge into Men's Olympic football tournament records and statistics -- as @Diannaa noted above, please make sure you're attributing where the material came from and where it's going in both edits. It's important both for copyright reasons, and so other editors don't have to hunt through your contributions to figure out where you're moving content. Thank you, Alyo (chat·edits) 15:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in FIFA World Cup records and statistics, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your changes were clear violations of MOS:COLOUR Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on that page for 2 years and never got told how it's done so I thought it was ok to be WP:BOLD. But I'm glad these pages are finally getting cleaned up and looked at by staff so we get an idea of how these pages should look. Thanks. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out that Wikipedia doesn't have staff, Aquatic Ambiance. Joseph2302 is a volunteer editor, like the rest of us. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup records and statistics

Hello Dear

why to remove the confederations of the teams in FIFA World Cup records and statistics, i think it is better to add the confederation of each team near his name for better sort أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to add this. It makes the table look cluttered. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You changed Lionel Messi to Kylian Mbappe for best player award. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide a source when adding material. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Where is the source saying Mbappe won it then? Spike 'em (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Your change here was purely disruptive, not trying to maintain the article Spike 'em (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

How is it disruptive? I just removed unsourced info. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

No you didn't, you replaced correct unsourced information with incorrect unsourced information with an edit summary that shows you were being disruptive. Spike 'em (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

And you named the heading "team rankings" back to "overall team records". Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's the "uniform" name. See [here]. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Euro Championship statistics

If you use three points for a win in the All Time table, then you need to change the total points gained for every country. They are incorrect!! BRACK66 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked the source and you're right, not sure why, but UEFA uses the 2 points per win standard in that table even though the use 3 points per win in the tournaments. 3 points per win would be better to make this article uniform with the rest but there's no source. If you can find a source you can change it back. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Maleshoff Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JoeBo82 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't the one starting or maintaining the edit war. I left a message on his page and also brought it to the Talk Page. I'm actually the one trying to resolve this, so please check the Talk Pages first. Thank you. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve responded to the talk pages with clarifying info. JoeBo82 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Girth Summit _(blether) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The above note is an automated template. I'll explain why I'm here, but it might help if you were first to read WP:BRD, if you're not already familiar. I'll explain: this series of edits by you can be considered a bold edit. This is a revert of your bold edit, but someone who disagreed with you. You are now expected not to reinstate any of your changes until you have discussed it on the talk page and reached an agreement. Instead, you reverted their revert. In an area covered by the contentious topics rules, that is not a good idea - please don't do it again. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ancient Aliens, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. The sources describe it in the way we describe it. That is why it's written that way. Our personal views shouldn't enter the picture. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Osborne Reef. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Europa: The Last Battle, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Isi96 (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Sustainable Development Goals, you may be blocked from editing. If you want to flip the stated consensus about "women's empowerment and gender equality" to "men's" you'll also need to provide a source for that. Belbury (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Complementary and alternative medicine

Hi - I see that back in March I left you a message indicating that pseudoscience and fringe science are covered by the contentious topics rules. The same applies to complementary and alternative medicine. Please take a look at WP:MEDRS for discussion of appropriate sources to use to support assertions about biomedical information. Thanks. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the scientific journals I use? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you read MEDRS? Make your case on the article source page, see if other editors agree with you. Don't edit war over it on a CTOP article - the onus is on you to get your edits accepted. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a chance to self-revert. As I said, the onus is on you to gain consensus. If you self-revert and start a thread on the talk page, all will be well; if you refuse to do that, I will ask another administrator to block your account for edit warring in this area. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Aquatic_Ambiance, which concerns your recent editing. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Vegans in Poland

Hello. Why do you disagree with changes concerning vegans (and also vegetarians) in Poland in the table of the article Vegetarianism by country? The information about vegans is very dubious, but the source of information about vegetarians in Poland is OK; this source contains also information about vegans. I replaced the dubious information about vegans with the information from this better source. What was wrong in my edits? D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey. It already says dubious – discuss, so it's better this way in my opinion. It's hard to find good sources. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

But dubious is only the source about vegans. The source about vegetarians is OK; and this good source contains also information about vegans. The aim of my edit was to change the information about vegans according to this good source and so to use this good source for information about both vegetarians and vegans (and to do not use the dubious source for this table). Do you agree now? D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to change it how it is now. Let's wait until proper sources are available with updated information. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

When newer sources is available then, of course, it will be desirable to change the table according to them. But now we have what we have. Why should we display dubious data from 2016 if we can display good data from 2017? There are two reasons to change the data about vegans in Poland: the other data is more reliable and more new. Moreover the change is easy: the better data is available in the same line of the table. I don't see any reason to rollback this change. D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

So, you did not convince me that my edits were needless. Possible appearance of better data in the future cannot be a reason to do not make an obvious improvement of an article. And even more it cannot be a reason to revert such an improvement. I will change the table the way as I did. If you want to revert this edit again then we will need a third opinion or another Wikipedia method to resolve the dispute. D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have made a request of a third opinion on this topic. D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi there, responding after seeing this on the third opinion request board. After having a look, I think that the 2017 data is good for the article- I don't see a reason for removing the edits being made by @D.M. from Ukraine. If new data turns up in the future, then the article can be further edited, but that's for the future. Right now, if an improvement can be made, then go for it. GraziePrego (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the opinion. D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Deprodding of Magi (gamer)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Magi (gamer), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Also BrolyLegs looks controversial enough per the talk page and hidden notice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

To delete the article you would need to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magi (gamer) with an appropriate rationale for deletion per WP:AFDHOWTO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the edit summary of my first revert, but if you do plan on making further edits, please do not continue to misgender Magi as you did in these edits: [1][2][3]. It is clear from the article and cited sources that she is a woman, so I am not sure why you used he/him. You might be familiar with the relevant guideline MOS:GENDERID. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)